ID: aiam3074

Dear Mr. Eckhold: This is in response to your letter of August 3, 1979, asking whethe Ford may ship to distributors and dealers vehicles with bumper guards, needed for compliance with Part 581, *Bumper Standard* (49 CFR Part 581), placed inside the vehicles for installation prior to sale of the vehicles to consumers. You state that the bumper guards, which would be attached by dealers and others making use of pre-processed mounting holes in the vehicle bumpers, would reduce railroad car capacity, if installed prior to shipment. You also suggest that absence of reference in the Customs regulations (19 CFR Part 12) to readily attachable components needed to comply with regulations issued under the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act (15 U.S.C. 1901), may lead to complications in the importation of vehicles prior to installation of readily attachable bumper components.; The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has no objection t the shipment of vehicles with readily attachable bumper components stored in the vehicles for later installation, provided the components are attached before the vehicles are offered for sale to the first purchaser for purposes other than resale. Further, regulations governing importation of motor vehicles (19 CFR 12.80) apply only to compliance with Federal motor vehicle safety standards, as set forth in 49 CFR Part 571, and the question of compliance with Part 581, therefore, should not arise.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam4532

"Dear Mr. Swisher: This responds to your letter of May 20, 1988, i which you sought an interpretation of Standard No. 109, New Pneumatic Tires - Passenger Cars (49 CFR 571.109). Specifically, you asked if either of three proposed courses of action would comply with the labeling requirements specified in S4.3.2 of Standard No. 109. That section reads as follows: 'Each tire shall be labeled with the name of the manufacturer, or the brand name and number assigned to the manufacturer in the manner specified in Part 574.' None of your proposed courses of action would satisfy this requirement, as explained below. You first asked if it is permissible to have no identification on the sidewall as to the name of the manufacturer or the brand name owner, but to simply use the identification numbers assigned to Cooper Tire under Part 574. Section S4.3.2 of Standard No. 109 explicitly requires each tire to be labeled with the manufacturer's name or a brand name and the identification number assigned to the manufacturer. Tires that are identified solely by an identification number would not comply with this requirement. Second, you asked if a tire could be labeled with three different brand names. Section S4.3.2 uses the singular tense to identify the name that must appear on the sidewall (name of the manufacturer or the brand name) and connects the alternative with the disjunctive 'or.' This grammatical structure indicates that only one name, either that of the actual manufacturer or the brand name owner, shall be labeled on the tire. The agency chose this grammatical structure to ensure that consumers would not be confused about the identity of the brand name or manufacturer of the tire. Accordingly, S4.3.2 prohibits Cooper from selling passenger car tires labeled with the names of three different brand name owners. Third, you asked if a generic term such as 'All Season' or 'Performance' would satisfy the requirement of S4.3.2 that either the name of the manufacturer or a brand name be labeled on the tires. Clearly, a generic term like 'Performance' is not the 'name of the manufacturer,' Cooper in this case. The 'brand name' refers to the name under which a tire is sold at retail, whether it is identical to the manufacturer's name (e.g., Firestone), a name owned by the manufacturer and used in place of its corporate name (i.e., a house brand, such as Falls that is manufactured by Cooper), or a name owned by someone other than the manufacturer (i.e., a private brand such as Atlas that is made by several manufacturers). My understanding of this proposed course of action is that the tires would be advertised and sold at retail as tires made by one of the three brand name owners, presumably using its brand name, not under the name 'All Season' or 'Performance.' Therefore, these generic terms would not be considered brand names for the purposes of section S4.3.2. If you have any further questions or need additional information on this subject, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel";

ID: aiam1915

Dear Ms. Holliday: Pursuant to your conversation of May 9, 1975, with John Womack, I a enclosing a list of companies who have registered with us as manufacturers of motorcycle helmets. The list is subject to change as manufacturers enter and leave the business, and does not include manufacturers who have neglected to follow our identification requirements. If your agency intends to follow this list, you should take care to keep it current.; The list is not an 'approved' list, but rather a list of manufacturer who are certifying the compliance of their products to Federal standards. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 *et seq.*), each person who manufactures a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment to which a Federal safety standard applies must manufacture his product in accordance with the standard. Our motorcycle helmet standard (Standard No. 218) went into effect on March 1, 1974, with respect to the medium-sized helmets that constitute about 50 percent of helmets sold. All manufacturers on the list who make helmets in that size range must therefore meet the standard and affix a label to the helmet certifying its compliance. To regulate these helmets at the State level, it would be easiest to specify that they be certified in accordance with Standard No. 218.; The balance of the helmet population, however, is not presently subjec to Federal Standards. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is well along in rulemaking to cover all helmets, but it has not yet issued a final standard. Until a Federal standard is issued, all helmets outside the regulated size range may be sold without certification. The reference in Oklahoma's bill to Federal standards would therefore impose requirements on only a portion of the helmets in the State.; Before the issuance of the Federal standard, the dominant industr standard was Standard No. Z-90.1- 1966 *Protective Headgear for Vehicular Users*, adopted by the American National Standards Institute, 1430 Broadway, New York, New York. In addition to the Z-90 standard, the Snell Standard, a more rigorous standard, has been administered by the Snell Memorial Foundation, Inc., 761 Laurel Drive, Sacramento, California. Most helmets made by reputable manufacturers in the years immediately before the effective date of the Federal standard on March 1, 1974, were certified as conforming either to Z-90 or to Snell and labeled to that effect. With respect to the helmet population now in use, it would therefore be possible for the Administrator to specify helmets that are certified as conforming to either ANSI Standard Z-90, the Snell Foundation specifications, or the Federal standard.; Sincerely, James C. Schultz, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam5361

"Dear Mr. Davis: This responds to your letters to Mr. David Elias formerly of this office, about the requirements of Standard 106, 'Brake Hoses,' for labeling hydraulic brake hose assemblies. I apologize for the delay in responding. You explain in your letters that Russell holds a license to manufacture brake hose assemblies from Titeflex Corporation, a manufacturer of brake hoses, end fittings and assemblies. Titeflex supplies Russell with braided hose, and Russell manufactures the end fittings that Titeflex designed, using Titeflex's engineering drawings. Russell assembles the Titeflex hose with the end fittings, and 'markets these hose assemblies in the marketplace.' You ask about marking the hose assemblies with a designation that identifies the manufacturer of the assembly, pursuant to S5.2.4 of Standard 106. You ask whether both Russell's and Titeflex's designations are required to be labeled, or only the designation of Russell. The answer is only Russell's designation is required to be marked. Russell is manufacturing the assemblies and will market the assemblies. Russell's designation will identify Russell as the manufacturer of the assembly in the event of a possible noncompliance or defect with the assembly. You also ask whether Titeflex's hose must be labeled with the information specified in S5.2.1 and S5.2.2 of Standard 106. The first part of your question asks whether the labeling requirements apply to bulk brake hose 'with a stainless braided outer covering.' The answer is yes. The standard does not exclude braided brake hoses from the labeling requirements. The second part of this question asks about the required labeling for hoses that are part of brake hose assemblies. You ask for confirmation that Standard 106 does not require the hose to be labeled once the hose is part of a brake hose assembly. Your understanding is correct with regard to S5.2.2. The last sentence of that paragraph states: 'The information specified in S5.2.2 need not be present on hose that is sold as part of a brake hose assembly or a motor vehicle.' (The quoted sentence was adopted at 56 FR 50520, October 7, 1991, to replace the sentence you referred to.) Accordingly, the hose need not bear the labeling of S5.2.2 when the hose is part of an assembly. However, the hose must still bear the stripes required by S5.2.1 unless, to quote from S5.2.1, the hose is 'manufactured for use only in an assembly whose end fittings prevent its installation in a twisted orientation in either side of the vehicle.' I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact Deirdre Fujita of my staff at the above address, or by phone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel cc: Mr. Nicholas S. Copass Sales Manager Titeflex Industrial America 170 Tapley Street Springfield, MA 01104-2893";

ID: aiam3806

Dear Mr. Vernon: This responds to your letter asking about the packaging requirements o Safety Standard No. 116, *Motor Vehicle Brake Fluids*. You asked whether the cap and seal on a sample container comply with the standard. The container has a Mylar inner seal, which according to your letter, is applied using heat.; By way of background information, this agency does not grant approval of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is up to the manufacturer to assure that its products comply with applicable requirements. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.; Standard No. 116 specifies performance and labeling requirements fo motor vehicle brake fluids and their containers. Paragraph S5.2.1 of the standard sets forth specific requirements for container sealing of brake fluid packages:; >>>Each brake fluid or hydraulic system mineral oil container with capacity of 6 fluid ounces or more shall be provided with a resealable closure that has an inner seal impervious to the packaged brake fluid. The container closure shall include a tamper-proof feature that will either be destroyed or substantially altered when the container closure is initially opened.<<<; The tamper-proof feature on your package appears to be the Mylar inne seal. Removal of the seal would ordinarily involve considerable tearing of the seal. Therefore, strictly speaking, this meets the standard's requirements that the temper-proof feature 'either be destroyed or substantially altered when the container closure is initially opened.' There may be some question whether the feature is actually tamper- proof, however, for two reasons. First, the seal might be carefully lifted up, in whole or in part, and then pressed down, with little indication that it had been 'tampered with.' Second, the seal could be totally removed from the container without leaving any indication. However, since the standard does not define the term 'tamper-proof,' we would have to say that your seal complies with the requirements of the standard.; Nevertheless, we suggest that you consider ways of improving the desig of this tamper-proof feature, even though it might meet the 'letter of the law' as far as Standard No. 116 is concerned. Among other things, you may wish to include a statement on the label that the package has been opened if the seal is broken or missing.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam4359

Dear Mr. Iwase: This is in reply to your letter of March 24, 1987, asking two question with respect to Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No.108; Your first question concerns an aiming adaptor for replaceable bul headlamps whose lenses may slant 60 degrees from the vertical or horizontal. You have discovered that the Hopkins universal adaptor cannot be used with these headlamps, and you propose to provide a special adaptor with each vehicle equipped with such headlamps, as well as aiming adjustment procedure information in the vehicle's service manual. You ask for confirmation of your belief that this is permissible under Standard No. 108.; Standard No. 108 does not require that an aiming adaptor be provide with a motor vehicle, only that its headlamps be capable of mechanical aim. Therefore there is no legal requirement that the adaptor be provided. However, without such an adaptor, an owner of a vehicle with the 60-degree headlamps may encounter difficulties of State inspection stations where mechanical aimers are in use, and at repair facilities when headlamps are replaced or after body work has been performed that necessitates reaim of headlamps. Therefore we believe that provision of the adaptor and aiming information would enhance consumer acceptance of the 60- degree headlamps.; Your second question concerns the legality of the upper aiming boss o a low profile headlamp. Because the height of the lens is insufficient to incorporate the upper aiming boss, you propose to place it on a flange of the lens in a 'photometrically ineffective area.' However, the flange is concealed when the hood is shut, and the hood must be opened in order for aiming adjustment to occur. You believe that this is acceptable under Standard No. 108. and ask for confirmation.; Paragraph S4.1.1.36 (a)(2) requires that 'the lens of each replaceabl bulb headlamp shall have three pads which meet the requirements of Figure 4....' Your drawing indicates that the flange is part of the headlamp lens even though that portion of the lens is not needed to provide illumination. Therefore this design would appear to meet the requirements of Figure 4 as you have concluded.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam3870

Dear Mr. Kasagi: This is in reply to your letter of November 13, 1984, with respect t interpretations of the motorcycle headlighting requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, and SAE J584.; You have asked 'whether other lighting systems than referred i S4.1.1.34, such as non-sealed beam head lamp with two bulbs, are acceptable or not.' The answer is yes. Non-sealed lamps meeting the requirements of SAE J584 are acceptable, including those with two bulbs, as the 'At- Focus Tests' paragraph of J584 is directed to 'light source or sources.'; Your next question is whether photometric compliance is judged when on light is on or two, including the maximum permissible output of 75,000 cd. The answer to this question depends on the design of the lamp, if it is designed so that both bulbs operate simultaneously, then photometrics including maximum output are determined with both bulbs operating. If the design is such that one bulb produces lower beam and the other the upper beam, then compliance is judged by that method of operation. Should one bulb produce both lower and upper beams and the other bulb perform an unregulated lighting function, then the photometric compliance would be judged with only the bulb used for the regulated function. In this case, however, the unregulated bulb must not interfere with the effectiveness of the headlamp. This also answers your final question about conduct of the out-of-focus test. It is to be conducted according to the design intent of the operation of the headlamp, i.e. the design function of each bulb or bulbs.; You have also asked about the geometrical center of a design when on of two bulbs (both with an upper beam and a lower beam filament apparently) is on. Operation of only one bulb alone would result in an assymetrical lighting display off the vehicle's centerline. This is permitted by S4.1.1.34 of Standard No. 108 for the sealed beam lighting systems specified therein. Therefore, we could not logically dissapprove (sic) of it for unsealed headlighting systems. However, if only one bulb performed both the lower beam function and the upper beam, and the other bulb performed an unregulated lighting function, then the bulb providing the lower/upper beams must be located on the vehicle's vertical centerline.; If you have any further questions, we shall be happy to answer them. Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam4639

"Dear Mr. Storms: This responds to your letter asking that thi Department 'approve' or otherwise 'recognize' your newly invented warning device. I apologize for the delay in this response. In your letter, you described your invention as a seven inch high, tetrahedral reflective traffic marker that is non-flammable and easily stored. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our law and regulations to you. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq., the Safety Act) gives this agency the authority to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. We have exercised this authority to establish Standard No. 125, Warning Devices (49 CFR 571.125, copy enclosed). This standard specifies performance requirements and test procedures for warning devices that are designed to be carried in motor vehicles and used to warn approaching traffic of a stopped vehicle. Based on the description in your letter, your newly invented product appears to be a warning device subject to Standard No. 125. When the agency has issued an applicable safety standard, section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)) provides that no person shall 'manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United States' any new motor vehicle or new item of equipment unless the vehicles or equipment are in conformity with the applicable standard. Assuming your product is subject to Standard No. 125, it must conform to all the requirements of that standard. You are not required to get some 'approval' or 'recognition' from this agency before selling this product. In fact, NHTSA has no authority under the Safety Act to approve, certify, or otherwise endorse any commercial product. Instead, section 114 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1403) establishes a self-certification process under which every manufacturer is required to certify that each of its products meet all applicable Federal safety standards. Therefore, the manufacturer of this new product must certify that it conforms to all applicable standards. Section 108(b)(2) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(b)(2)) requires the manufacturer of this new warning device to exercise 'due care' in certifying that it conforms to Standard No. 125. To comply with these legal obligations, I suggest that you carefully examine the requirements of Standard No. 125 and determine if this new product conforms with those requirements. As you will see, Standard No. 125 contains specific requirements related to a warning device's material, container, labeling, configuration, color, reflectivity, luminance, stability, and durability. In particular, you should be aware that section S5.2.2 of the standard requires that: each of the three sides of the triangular portion of the warning device shall not be less than 17 and not more than 22 inches long, and not less than 2 inches and not more than 3 inches wide. Your letter states that your new warning device is seven inches in height. If that is the case, the new warning device would not comply with the requirements of Standard No. 125. You should further compare your proposed design with the other requirements in Standard No. 125 to determine if your new warning device complies with all of the other provisions. You should be aware that the Vehicle Safety Act establishes a civil penalty of $1,000 for each violation of a safety standard and a maximum penalty of $800,000 for a series of violations. In addition, the Act requires manufacturers to remedy their products if they fail to comply with any applicable safety standards. If you have any further questions or need additional information on this subject, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel Enclosure";

ID: aiam4343

Dear Mr. White: This responds to your letter seeking an interpretation of Standard No 119, *New Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars (49 CFR S571.119). Specifically, you stated that you currently mark a tire with the size designation 385/65 R 22.5 Load Range J. You also stated that this tire has the same dimensions as a 15 R 22.5 Load Range J tire. You asked whether Standard No. 119 would prohibit the following size designation from being marked on the tire:; >>>385/65R22.5 LRJ<<< >>>(15R22.5)<<< The marking requirements for tires subject to Standard No. 119 are se forth in section S6.5 of the standard. Section S6.5(c) requires that each tire be marked on both sidewalls with 'the tire size designation as listed in the documents and publications designated S5.1.' Section S5.1 of Standard No. 119 requires each tire manufacturer to ensure that a listing of the rims that may be used with each tire the manufacturer produces is available to the public. This may be done either by the individual manufacturer furnishing a document to each of its dealers, to this agency, and to any person upon request, or the manufacturer may rely on the tire and rim matching information published by certain standardization organizations.; With respect to the 385/65 R 22.5 Load Range J tire size, Michelin ha not furnished any individual information for this tire size to the agency. The only standardization organization that has published tires and rim matching information for this tire size is the European Tyre and Rim Technical Organization (ETRTO), which did so in its 1987 yearbook. Accordingly, section S5.2 of Standard No. 119 provides that the information for this tire size in the 1987 ETRTO yearbook is considered to be information for Michelin's tires of that size.; The 1987 ETRTO yearbook shows the tire size only as 385/65 R 22.5. A noted above, section S6.5.(c) requires that the tire size designation on the sidewall be 'as listed in the documents and publications designated in S5.1'. Reading this requirement as narrowly as possible, S6.5(c) prohibits Michelin from marking the tires as both 385/65 R 22.5 and 15 R 22.5, since the size is shown only as 385/65 R 22.5 in the publication designated in S5.1 of Standard No. 119.; In a broader sense, the practice of labeling two tire sizes on on tire, as you requested in your letter, was once a fairly common practice and was referred to as 'dual-size markings.' Dual-size markings were a marketing effort by tire manufacturers to try to persuade consumers to change the size and/or type of tire on their vehicles, by representing that this particular tire size was an appropriate replacement for two different sizes of tires. However, the practice of using dual-size markings confused many consumers about the size of the tire on their vehicle. The only purpose of the Federally required markings on tires is to provide consumers, in a straightforward manner, with technical information necessary for the safe use and operation of the tire. The agency concluded that it was inappropriate to permit a marketing technique that was confusing many consumers to defeat the purpose of the required markings on tires. Accordingly, dual-size markings were expressly prohibited for passenger car tires subject to standard No. 109, 36 FR 1195, January 26, 1971.; While Standard No. 119 does not expressly prohibit dual- size markings section S6.5(c) uses the singular when it refers to the 'tire size designation' to be labeled on the tire. Considering the past history associated with dual-size markings, this agency interprets section S6.5(c) of Standard No. 119 as prohibiting a manufacturer from marking a tire with two different size designations, *even if* a document or publication designated in S5.1 were to show two different size designations for the same tire size.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel

ID: 571.125 -- Warning Devices - Anderson

Ms. Vivian P. Anderson

10575 Bell Fountain Road

Dawson, IL 62520

Dear Ms. Anderson:

Thank you for your letter dated March 9, 2020, following up our February 26, 2020, Compliance Assistance Program (CAP) response about a type of warning device you are interested in producing.

You ask whether there are any Federal regulations regarding the size or reflective coloring for distress signals that may be used in the case of a vehicle emergency. In our original CAP response, we noted that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has issued Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 125, “Warning devices,” which covers warning devices “that are designed to be carried in buses and trucks that have a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) greater than 10,000 pounds” (49 CFR §571.125). We noted that distress signals like the one described in your CAP question may be considered warning devices for the purposes of FMVSS No.125 if they are intended to be carried in buses or trucks with a GVWR greater than 10,000 pounds.

In your follow-up letter, you provide greater detail on your product, which you call the Distress Bandana. You describe your product as a reflective flag that can be hung from a disabled vehicle’s window to signal distress. You further state that your product is intended for use only on vehicles with a GVWR less than 10,000 pounds, and on motorcycles. 

Discussion 

By way of background information, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act) authorizes NHTSA to issue safety standards for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not approve or certify vehicles or items of equipment. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a self-certification process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable FMVSS. The agency tests vehicles and items of equipment for compliance with the standards. NHTSA also investigates safety- related defects.

2

At this time, there are no FMVSS pertaining to your product.1 FMVSS No. 125 applies to devices designed to be carried in buses and trucks with a GVWR greater than 10,000 pounds. As long as the Distress Bandana is designed for use only in vehicles with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less, FMVSS No. 125 would not apply to your product.2 In determining whether a warning device is designed for use in a bus or truck with a GVWR greater than 10,000 pounds, we may look to product advertising, labels, and instructions (e.g., specifying intended use), as well as how the product is actually used by motorists.

Please be aware that even if your product is not covered by FMVSS No. 125, products like the Distress Bandana are items of “motor vehicle equipment” and subject to Safety Act requirements. Manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment must ensure that their products are free of safety-related defects. If a manufacturer or NHTSA determines that the product contains a safety-related defect, the manufacturer would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the product and remedying the problem free of charge. More information can be found in the NHTSA New Manufacturers Handbook, which can be downloaded on NHTSA’s website https://vpic.nhtsa.dot.gov/.

Please note that our answer above is based on our understanding of the specific information you provided. This interpretation letter does not have the force and effect of law and is not meant to bind the public in any way. This letter is intended only to provide clarity to the public regarding existing requirements under the law, and represents the opinion of the agency on the questions addressed in your letter at the time of signature.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Paul Connet of my office at (202) 366-5547.

Sincerely yours,

JONATHAN CHARLES MORRISON

Digitally signed by JONATHAN CHARLES MORRISON

Date: 2020.10.02 09:15:13

-04'00'

Jonathan C. Morrison Chief Counsel

Date: 10/2/20

Ref: FMVSS No. 125

1 The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) has requirements that commercial vehicles be equipped with warning devices and requirements related to their use. For information about FMCSA requirements, please contact www.fmcsa.dot.gov.

2 FMVSS No. 125 was issued on August 2, 1974. 39 FR 28636. The standard then applied to “devices, without self- contained energy sources, that are designed to be carried in motor vehicles and used to warn approaching traffic of the presence of a stopped vehicle, except for devices designed to be permanently affixed to the vehicle.” On September 29, 1994, NHTSA further amended the standard to be applicable only to those devices designed to be carried in buses or trucks that have a GVWR greater than 10,000 pounds.